Bada Yang1, Maria Olsen2, Yasaman Vali2, Miranda W Langendam2, Yemisi Takwoingi3, Christopher J Hyde4, Patrick M M Bossuyt2, Mariska M G Leeflang2. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Electronic address: b.d.yang@amsterdamumc.nl. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 3. Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 4. Exeter Test Group and South West CLAHRC, University of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify and classify comparative diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) study designs; (2) to describe study design labels used by authors of comparative DTA studies. METHODS: We performed a methodological review of 100 comparative DTA studies published between 2015 and 2017, randomly sampled from studies included in 238 comparative DTA systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE in 2017. From each study report, we extracted six design elements characterizing participant flow and the labels used by authors. RESULTS: We identified a total of 46 unique combinations of study design features in our sample, based on six design elements characterizing participant flow. We classified the studies into five study design categories based on how participants were allocated to receive each index test: 'fully paired' (n=79), 'partially paired, random subset' (n=0), 'partially paired, nonrandom subset' (n=2), 'unpaired randomized' (n=1) and 'unpaired nonrandomized' (n=3). The allocation method used in 15 studies was unclear. Sixty-one studies reported, in total, 29 unique study design labels but only four labels referred to specific design features of comparative studies. CONCLUSION: Our classification scheme can help systematic review authors define study eligibility criteria, assess risk of bias, and communicate the strength of the evidence. A standardized labelling scheme could be developed to facilitate communication of specific design features.
OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify and classify comparative diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) study designs; (2) to describe study design labels used by authors of comparative DTA studies. METHODS: We performed a methodological review of 100 comparative DTA studies published between 2015 and 2017, randomly sampled from studies included in 238 comparative DTA systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE in 2017. From each study report, we extracted six design elements characterizing participant flow and the labels used by authors. RESULTS: We identified a total of 46 unique combinations of study design features in our sample, based on six design elements characterizing participant flow. We classified the studies into five study design categories based on how participants were allocated to receive each index test: 'fully paired' (n=79), 'partially paired, random subset' (n=0), 'partially paired, nonrandom subset' (n=2), 'unpaired randomized' (n=1) and 'unpaired nonrandomized' (n=3). The allocation method used in 15 studies was unclear. Sixty-one studies reported, in total, 29 unique study design labels but only four labels referred to specific design features of comparative studies. CONCLUSION: Our classification scheme can help systematic review authors define study eligibility criteria, assess risk of bias, and communicate the strength of the evidence. A standardized labelling scheme could be developed to facilitate communication of specific design features.
Authors: Noah D Cohen; Patricia Flores-Ahlschewde; Giana M Gonzales; Susanne K Kahn; Bibiana Petri da Silveira; Jocelyne M Bray; Emily E King; Caroline C Blair; Angela I Bordin Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 3.175